For me, before prayer & discernment, we should check if what they teach is based from the Bible. I believe (& our church) in Scriptures only (sola Scriptura). If what I'm hearing in a preaching message seems doubtful, I recheck the Bible passage back home. If it is not exegetic, then it's not from God.

To digress from the topic,

Exegesis is a human activity. How then can you verify that a statement is from God, especially considering that in sola scriptura, the scripture is self-authenticating? Isn't exegesis then a more or less automatic response because anything unfamiliar with the scripture is most likely not from God?

(Obviously I'm a prima scriptura guy, Catholic, and I just can't wrap my head around sola scriptura, but I welcome discussions on this. Granted that Christian scripture is taken from Judaism with some changes in order, and that the Protestant Bible has seven books removed from the Catholic one, I think that context outside the scripture is essential in understanding scripture, because context made canon.)

For me, before prayer & discernment, we should check if what they teach is based from the Bible. I believe (& our church) in Scriptures only (sola Scriptura). If what I'm hearing in a preaching message seems doubtful, I recheck the Bible passage back home. If it is not exegetic, then it's not from God.

How coud it be exegetic in the first place if the bible was left for an open interpratation? Words will have a ton of meaning how will it be possible for someone to discern it as their god's words?

How coud it be exegetic in the first place if the bible was left for an open interpratation? Words will have a ton of meaning how will it be possible for someone to discern it as their god's words?

Pag sola scriptura kasi sir, self-authenticating ang scripture. Logically speaking, all assumptions are established in scripture, therefore any apparent fallacies or counter arguments can be resolved by the same body of work. Dyan papasok yung intricate understanding ng multiple standards sa scripture para alam mo kung alin ang hindi dapat sumalungat sa aling sulat and it what order or primacy. Even the orthodox and Catholic readings of the scripture are not exempted from this anomaly, even if they abide by prima scriptura. It's just more pronounced in Protestant theology because external references cannot weigh in on doctrine unlike say Catholicism where things like the Second Vatican Council can drastically change the catechism of the church.

Pag sola scriptura kasi sir, self-authenticating ang scripture. Logically speaking, all assumptions are established in scripture, therefore any apparent fallacies or counter arguments can be resolved by the same body of work. Dyan papasok yung intricate understanding ng multiple standards sa scripture para alam mo kung alin ang hindi dapat sumalungat sa aling sulat and it what order or primacy. Even the orthodox and Catholic readings of the scripture are not exempted from this anomaly, even if they abide by prima scriptura. It's just more pronounced in Protestant theology because external references cannot weigh in on doctrine unlike say Catholicism where things like the Second Vatican Council can drastically change the catechism of the church.

How coud it be exegetic in the first place if the bible was left for an open interpratation? Words will have a ton of meaning how will it be possible for someone to discern it as their god's words?

In our church, we have been taught that the Scriptures (Old & New Testament in our case) explains itself. Any interpretation of a passage should be supported by the Bible itself and not influenced by human biases. I'm sorry I cannot elaborate deeply because I am still under training on how to do exegesis.

In our church, we have been taught that the Scriptures (Old & New Testament in our case) explains itself. Any interpretation of a passage should be supported by the Bible itself and not influenced by human biases. I'm sorry I cannot elaborate deeply because I am still under training on how to do exegesis.

I believe this is the doctrine(?) of the inerrancy of the bible. I'm not an evangelical, so I can't explain as well as an evangelical theologian/pastor/scholar would, but yeah, the bible cannot be influenced by human biases, but humans can interpret it with the ultimate reference being scripture itself, holding that nothing in the bible is false nor does anything in the bible affirm anything contrary to fact.

This is one of the main frictions points between Protestants and Catholics, in that Catholics hold the bible as infallible, meaning there can be apparently opposing notions (within or outside the scripture, such as strict interpretation of mosaic law vs the law of Christ, or the creation myth is vs archaeological history) but in the moral end spiritual level, the bible is the paragon of faith and there is no error in such.

We have a clear history of Illuminati's existence but as to whether they still exist is not clear.

Sana totoo nga ang character ni Robert Langdon - whose brilliance as symboligist involves those of illuminati things. But i would like to take his last words to Sophie Neveu. "Okay, maybe there is no proof. Maybe the Grail is lost forever. But Sophie, the only thing that matters is what you believe."